Nature positive

Download the full issue as pdf

Reject false solutions and uphold agroecology in the Global Biodiversity Framework

Sabrina Masinjila, African Centre for Biodiversity

The transition towards more socially just, equitable and ecologically sustainable agricultural systems to address the converging climate and biodiversity crises, in large part driven by industrial agriculture cannot be overemphasized. Yet, negotiations regarding Target 10 of the GBF are at an impasse  because proposals on transitioning towards agroecological systems are being undermined by ecologically catastrophic proposals– including ‘sustainable intensification (SI)’.

For Africa, where smallholder farmers predominate, a nod by the global community in the GBF for SI, will give the green light for entrenching the agriculture system that will be the death knell for these farmers. SI entrenches an industrial agriculture paradigm that is wholly captured and controlled by big agribusiness. It indisputably entails ecologically destructive monocrop production systems, whose economies of scale favor large scale production, based on the use of risky and costly patented genetically engineered seed and associated toxic synthetic agrochemicals and fertilizers.

By contrast, agroecology is an integrated and appropriate response to the multiple challenges facing smallholder production in the era of climate change and global disruptions. Further, it hugely contributes towards democracy, social justice, and an inclusive economy. Agroecology is an effective response to meeting multiple Party objectives, ranging from food and nutrition security, natural resource management, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, sustainable water access and use, localisation, cooperative and small enterprise development, spatial planning, local economic development, employment, empowerment of women and youth. Agroecology and SI cannot and should not co-exist within the GBF if Parties are really serious about the urgency of the tasks at hand and the lateness of the hour to do the right thing.

Corporate rights: Limited liability, unlimited powers

Helena Paul, Econexus

When thinking about corporate power within the CBD, it is worth looking at the history of the corporate structure. The (British) East India Company received its Royal Charter in 1600, giving its members the right to share in the monopoly on trade in “the Indies”. During the century its members amalgamated their stock and became a partnership. Then the partnership sold its stock to the company in return for a share in the company, which then traded stock in its own name with members receiving a share of the profits. It thus became the first commercial corporation owned by shareholding members – with no discussion or  oversight from government... In 1855 an Act was passed in England limiting shareholder liability to the amount they had paid for their shares. Then in 1966, UK, two decisions (the so-called “Bell Houses clause” and the Court of Appeal’s decision) transferred the right to decide the limits of a Corporation’s powers from the Courts to the Board of Directors of each Corporation... This allows Directors of Corporations knowingly to cause harm to the public in the pursuit of profit, because the Corporate form protects them from legal responsibility for their actions. Thus shareholders, with full knowledge of that harm, can invest without any fear of being found legally responsible.

Corporate human rights: In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the word ‘everyone’ does not only apply to people (natural persons). It may also include companies and corporations, because they too are defined as legal persons once they have been ‘incorporated’. They may use their status as legal persons to claim aspects of human rights: for example, freedom of speech in order to lobby and advertise.
Please see https://www.econexus.info/publication/who-is-in-charge

Nature positive - positively meaningless?

Tammi Jonas, Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance

20% of the world’s population - the Global North - uses 80% of the world’s resources. And it is the highly industrialised countries of the Global North who are calling most loudly for a ‘nature-positive world’. The CBD text does not define ‘nature’. In contrast, ‘biological diversity’ (or biodiversity) is clearly defined, and includes ecosystems and habitats, species and communities, and genes and genetic material. ‘Positive’ is even more ambiguous than ‘nature’ and is related to other concepts such as ‘net gain’ and ‘no net loss’. If the CBD approves ‘The Measurable Nature Positive Goal for the CBD Mission’, it will water down what little ambition exists in the GBF, and developing countries are likely to face the greater burden of becoming ‘nature positive’. Once again finding a way to capitalise on false solutions to problems they have caused, The Future of Nature and Business report (2020) estimates that a nature-positive economy can unlock $10 trillion of business opportunities by transforming the three economic systems responsible for almost 80% of nature loss: energy, infrastructure, and food.

In fact, the most effective way to transform economic activities in order to halt and reverse biodiversity loss is through strong regulatory measures on the actors behind the destruction of ecosystems, which can be strengthened through ambitious targets in the GBF. A framing that would benefit the business sector more than key rights holders will not take us on a path to transformative change. To genuinely protect biodiversity, we need to ensure that ecosystem functions and the well-being of the communities who depend on them are no longer threatened and destroyed. Rightsholders, their traditional knowledge and their land and tenure rights are not defined in the nature-positive framing, but they are in the Nagoya Protocol, UNDRIP, and UNDROP. They must be supported by respecting these rights and through direct funding mechanisms. Indigenous Peoples, peasants, and local communities - especially women - are the best guardians of the world’s ecosystems, and yet their vision and wisdom are not leading nor recognised in the nature positive framing.

Download the whole issue as pdf

Legal, sustainable and safe use of biodiversity is a right of IPLCs

Community Leaders Network, Resource Africa, Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations (NACSO) and African CSOs Biodiversity Alliance (ACBA)

While sustainable use is one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), it remains in the shadows of the other objectives, especially the one on conservation. The Aichi Targets failed to deliver on sustainable use because of a disproportionate focus on conservation. Sustainable use it's about community ownership. And it is a positive, holistic approach to addressing biodiversity loss.

For sub-Saharan countries, sustainable use is not theoretical. It is the heart of local and national economies. It supports cultural and religious beliefs and livelihoods. It powerfully embraces conservation and benefit sharing -neither is viable without the other. Especially where the majority of the population is rural, it is a tool for empowerment of IPLCs. These rural populations understand the complexity of living with and managing biodiversity. In a globalised world where economic volatility is exacerbated by climate change, for rural communities the legal, sustainable and safe use of biodiversity is a vital safety net. So, why is #COP15 keeping sustainable use under the radar? This is because sustainable use is being labelled ‘backward’ when in fact, it continues to deliver major conservation and livelihood benefits.

Customary use is a part of sustainable use. To make “sustainable use” synonymous with “customary use” undermines the contribution of biodiversity to local and national economic activities. Africa cannot be reduced to a continent reliant only on a subsistence economy. We strongly urge COP15 to cast the sustainable, safe and legal use of biodiversity in a positive light and recognise and respect its broader contribution to the wellbeing of Africans.

“Nature Positive”: the new “con” in conservation

Simon Counsell, Advisor to Survival International

There has clearly been strong pressure from business lobbyists such as WBCSD and Business for Nature, along with certain big conservation corporations, for inclusion of the term ‘Nature Positive’ in the mission of the GBF. This slogan sounds nice, but could mark a serious step backward in achieving the objectives of the CBD.

“A Nature Positive world” is not a science-based aim like keeping climate change to 1.5 degrees. It moves the CBD away from its precisely defined mission concerning biodiversity to the very imprecise term “nature” – which has long been understood to be a cultural construct rather than a measurable object. It pitches the GBF into the realm of subjectivity, uncertainty and potential abuse. The separation it implies between humans and nature is widely discredited and alien to  manycommunities especially Indigenous Peoples. It begs many questions as to whose nature is being referred to, and what it means in terms of, say, genetic diversity, endangered species, endangered populations, ecosystems, biomes etc. Similar problems bedevil the term “nature recovery”.

Proponents of “Nature Positive” claim that it is “measurable”, though the massive list of things they say would have to be monitored is, in reality, highly implausible. For conservation organisations, perhaps “nature positive” helps sidestep the problem that the intended near-doubling of protected areas to 30% will not necessarily help biodiversity much, though it’ll certainly involve a lot of “nature”. For large corporations it could serve a similar role as misleading “net zero” does on climate. Corporate claims to “nature positivity” could involve almost anything involving living organisms, and conceal any amount of damage to actual biodiversity.

“Nature positivity” in fact invites a torrent of corporate greenwashing and false “solutions” rather than meaningful science-based action to protect biodiversity. It is the ultimate “nature based solution” – a solution to the problem of how to avoid any accountability for impacts. It offers a “contribution”: a mere part in place of the whole of biodiversity. It has no place in the GBF and should be rejected.

The original and extended version of this article is available at: https://redd-monitor.org/2022/12/07/nature-positive-the-new-con-in-cons…

Civil society organizations call CBD to strengthen precaution on geoengineering

Laura Dunn and Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group

Ninety-one national and international organizations from forty countries released an open letter calling on the CBD and its Parties to reinforce the existing landmark decisions and moratorium on the deployment of climate geoengineering technologies.

Precautionary decisions from the CBD are more necessary than ever as geoengineering experiments increase. These experiments threaten land and marine ecosystems, the climate, the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities around the world. Recently, Australia and the UK have conducted open-air solar and marine geoengineering experiments without reporting these activities to the UN. Other experiments in Sweden and Alaska have been blocked by Indigenous peoples and civil society organizations.

In an extremely concerning move, a body of the Paris Agreement on climate change, has proposed several geoengineering technologies as potential sources for carbon credits. Opposition from civil society stopped the decision, but the discussion is ongoing. This proposal (2) disregards the precautionary calls from the CBD and the fact that the London Convention on ocean dumping is evaluating these techniques for potential “adverse impacts on the marine environment”. The letter calls for the following:

• Parties to the CBD must affirm precaution and prevent geoengineering from harming biodiversity, the environment, the climate, the rights of Indigenous peoples and the human rights of local communities and recall past CBD decisions against geoengineering.
• COP 15 must ensure that geoengineering (including "Nature Based Solutions") is explicitly excluded from the Global Biodiversity Framework and any other decisions on marine biodiversity and climate at COP15.
• The CBD Secretariat should proactively reach out to all other UN bodies discussing geoengineering to share relevant CBD decisions, highlighting the need for precautionary approach.
• Parties to the CBD must require countries to report on any geoengineering initiative taken in or by their countries.

Sign the letter at: https://forms.gle/CYDrJZTdPSa5yCRb8

(1) Available at: http://bit.ly/3WaqpeT
(2) Available at: https://bit.ly/3hrMKWy

Centering Human Rights in the global biodiversity agenda

Cristina Eghenter, WWF International

COP15 of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) is in the final week of negotiations on the next global biodiversity framework. Resource mobilization and DSI need to be resolved in effective and just ways. Human rights and equity need to be centered in the framework and its implementation. For people and nature, the stakes have never been higher.

For biodiversity conservation and the resilience of life systems, a human rights-based approach (HRBA) is an essential and enabling condition. A global commitment to transform a development model that has undermined biodiversity for the benefit of a few, is urged by civil society, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), women and youth. HRBA recognizes and empowers all custodians of biodiversity and rights holders who have too often been neglected, “invisible” in biodiversity decision- and policy-making. Without Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and other custodians of land, water and life, we cannot heal our broken relationship with nature.

Applying human rights to halt and reverse biodiversity loss requires deep transformation of production and consumption. Businesses need to adhere to both environmental and human rights standards. Governance systems need to be inclusive, embedding the knowledge and institutions of those rights holders who are most dependent on biodiversity, and its best custodians. IPLCs, women and girls and youth need to be empowered, supported with adequate resources, and equal partners in any planning and decision-making impact on their lives, waters and territories. The Montreal negotiators must deliver on their good intentions, with strong and effective rights-based rules, to realize the vision of an ecological harmony between humanity and nature. Only by doing so can we bequeath future generations a thriving planet.